The CESTAT held that the service tax demand raised beyond the...

The CESTAT held that the service tax demand raised beyond the statutory limitation period of thirty months was barred by limitation, as the extended five-year period could not be invoked absent evidence of fraud, collusion, or willful misstatement. The appellant had duly declared export of services in their returns, and there was no indication that the department conducted the requisite scrutiny or sought further information, thereby precluding invocation of the extended limitation period. Consequently, the notice issued after the limitation period was invalid. Given this finding, the tribunal declined to address whether the appellant qualified as an intermediary under the POPS Rules or whether the services constituted export under Rule 6A of the Service Tax Rules. The impugned order demanding service tax was set aside, and the appeal was allowed.

---